Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock – New Guidelines, 2012

Sepsis is a complex and potentially life-threatening sequela of infection that commonly occurs and can be difficult to identify. If unrecognized or undertreated, sepsis can progress to severe sepsis, septic shock, characterized by hypotension and multisystem organ failure, and ultimately death. This case illustrates classic signs and symptoms of sepsis and septic shock in a postoperative patient. Recognizing these symptoms, rapidly initiating resuscitation with intravenous fluids and broad-spectrum antibiotics and aggressive management of these patients is imperative to prevent further decompensation. In 2017, the Surviving Sepsis campaign published new guidelines to assist with the management of patients with sepsis and septic shock. Key points from these guidelines will be highlighted within this case.

Download Full-text

Effect of fluid bolus triggers and their combination on fluid responsiveness in optimization phase of severe sepsis and septic shock resuscitation

MedPharmRes ◽

10.32895/ump.mpr.2.3.27 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 2 (3) ◽

pp. 27-32

Author(s):

Bien Le ◽

Dai Huynh ◽

Mai Tuan ◽

Minh Phan ◽

Thao Pham ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Blood Pressure ◽

Septic Shock ◽

Severe Sepsis ◽

Fluid Responsiveness ◽

Statistical Significance ◽

Venous Pressure ◽

Fluid Bolus ◽

Low Blood Pressure ◽

Low Central Venous Pressure ◽

Sepsis And Septic Shock

Objectives: to evaluate the fluid responsiveness according to fluid bolus triggers and their combination in severe sepsis and septic shock. Design: observational study. Patients and Methods: patients with severe sepsis and septic shock who already received fluid after rescue phase of resuscitation. Fluid bolus (FB) was prescribed upon perceived hypovolemic manifestations: low central venous pressure (CVP), low blood pressure, tachycardia, low urine output (UOP), hyperlactatemia. FB was performed by Ringer lactate 500 ml/30 min and responsiveness was defined by increasing in stroke volume (SV) ≥15%. Results: 84 patients were enrolled, among them 30 responded to FB (35.7%). Demographic and hemodynamic profile before fluid bolus were similar between responders and non-responders, except CVP was lower in responders (7.3 ± 3.4 mmHg vs 9.2 ± 3.6 mmHg) (p 0.018). Fluid response in low CVP, low blood pressure, tachycardia, low UOP, hyperlactatemia were 48.6%, 47.4%, 38.5%, 37.0%, 36.8% making the odd ratio (OR) of these triggers were 2.81 (1.09-7.27), 1.60 (0.54-4.78), 1.89 (0.58-6.18), 1.15 (0.41-3.27) and 1.27 (0.46-3.53) respectively. Although CVP < 8 mmHg had a higher response rate, the association was not consistent at lower cut-offs. The combination of these triggers appeared to raise fluid response but did not reach statistical significance: 26.7% (1 trigger), 31.0% (2 triggers), 35.7% (3 triggers), 55.6% (4 triggers), 100% (5 triggers). Conclusions: fluid responsiveness was low in optimization phase of resuscitation. No fluid bolus trigger was superior to the others in term of providing a higher responsiveness, their combination did not improve fluid responsiveness as well.

Download Full-text